It is understandable that we are upset whenever any U.S. citizen is killed by a foreign attack. The Republican attack on the Obama administration for the consulate killings in Libya goes beyond reasonable concern and descends into crass political opportunism.

In the wake of the nation’s biggest loss of life due to terrorism on Sept. 11, 2001, the country rallied together with none of this current finger-pointing. If either political party had engaged in this level of criticism after 9/11, the Bush administration would have been castigated as the worst protector of the country in our history. If the Republicans are so concerned about our national security, they should have been more critical 11 years ago.

The truth is that we were all in it together back then and we are still in it together; it’s time to act like it.

Greg Wright, Castle Rock

This letter was published in the Oct. 26 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here[1]. Follow DPLetters[2] on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Some would question whether or not the 9/11/01 attacks within the boundaries of the United States were “foreseeable” events……whereas those same people might look at a “minimally” protected consulate in a war-torn country that was as about as “secure” and “safe” and “peaceful” as Afghan and Iraq are…….and see what the Obama Administration should have seen: A lapse in security in the war-torn country that was – and still is – about as “secure” and “safe” and “peaceful” as Afghan and Iraq are……and (perhaps) done more to provide adequate security to protect an American ambassador.in a war-torn country that could not possibly have been considered to be “friends” and “partners-in-peace” THEN or NOW. Not YET anyway.

Was…..”somebody”…..simply…..naive? Was…..somebody…..that naive…..that they actually thought that the Good Old USA that helped the rebels overthrow Kadafy…..would be considered…..the “friend”…..”savior”…..and the….”messiah”….. of ALL Libya…..and that no harm would ever befall the ambassador???

Perhaps…..those who forgot their history…..thought Tehran in 1979 was it?…..would never, ever be repeated in another Muslim country?

#2 Comment By thor On October 26, 2012 @ 12:21 am

9-11-2001 was devastating to our country. We had no warning, though we did have some clues that were ignored. 9-11-2012 was a horrible event, but it wasn’t devastating to our country. We had emails sent before and during the attack that didn’t garner the right response. Benghazigate is a scandal bigger than Watergate and responding to it isn’t political opportunism.

#3 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 12:29 pm

When the current administration opens the books and tells us what they already know, then we’ll be satisfied. Until then, quit the finger pointing and blame placing on others.

#4 Comment By chaka419 On October 26, 2012 @ 2:12 pm

Bush did not go to the public and blame 9-11-01 on a YouTube video when he knew perfectly well it was a terror attack. Obama was first to respond to the attack from a political place by making every apology in the book to Muslin extremists and BLAME IT ON AMERICA. I also find it very offensive of the POTUS to gleefully blame an American Citizen and bend over backwards to never blame Muslim extremists. The Fort Hood terrorist attack is a prime example of Obama bending over backwards to not offend Muslim extremists and blame OUR military.

#5 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 3:57 pm

” … on Sept. 11, 2001, the country rallied together with none of this current finger-pointing.”

Mr. Wright must be new to this country. There was plenty of “finger-pointing,” and still remains among the inside-job conspiracy crowd, and the country wasn’t “rallied together” as much as some would like to think. It didn’t take long for the what-did-Bush-know-and-when-did-he-know-it stuff to start.

With Benghazi, it was clear from the start that the video, which by the way hadn’t yet been released, explanation was dubious at best; that White House minions like U.N. ambassador Susan Rice kept up the story for several days afterward makes it even more silly in that protesters don’t generally show up with RPGs and then claim credit for a terror attack a few hours later.

The question is, why? What would be the harm in saying up front, “It appears some terrorists broke in and killed our people. We’re investigating and will get those responsible.” Instead, they propped up a phony story and look silly back-tracking with the “best intelligence at the time” alibi. Yet another example of this administration bending over backward trying not to rile the Islamic world in the face of a riled-up Islamic world.

#6 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 4:05 pm

Good point. We do have the truthers, don’t we. And a poll done in 2006 found that 50.8% of Democrats thought is was very likely or somewhat likely that W knew about the attack on 9/11 before it happened. (Scripps Howard/ University of Ohio poll)

#7 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 5:35 pm

Because GOP operatives would have attacked Obama for allowing an attack like that anyway.

The State Department, and the Executive Office are either damned if they let everyone dissect in real time or after the Whitehouse spins it.

Of course the Whitehouse will spin it, and of course the opposition will politicize it.

The sky is blue and water is wet.

#8 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 5:54 pm

Depending on how the question was worded, *I* might have been included in the 50.8% because of the “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US” brief. That poll is hardly proof.

#9 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 5:55 pm

Also, bringing up truthers is silly. Was there a truther Dem presidential nominee in 2004? You’re not comparing apples to apples.

#10 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 6:02 pm

No, but it does allow goodspkr to continue his never-ending quest to paint Democrats as being from the Dark Side of the Force.

#11 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 6:05 pm

And, of course, no conservatives have ever believed such a thing. Riiiiight.

#12 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 6:09 pm

Yes, bringing up truthers is silly, but it does allow goodspkr to continue his never-ending quest to portray all Democrats as being from the Dark Side of the Force.
I do not in any way think Bush knew of 9/11 in advance, but I do believe that once 9/11 occurred, Bush used the opportunity to advance his “national security state” agenda, and pursue a war against Iraq.

#13 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 6:13 pm

The video hadn’t been released yet, but there were promo trailers of it all over the Internet.
Initially, Bush tried to deflect blame for 9/11 to Iraq.
It’s what administrations in Washington do: Deflect attention and blame. Republicans are just as capable of it as Democrats.

#14 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 6:32 pm

I don’t think he did either, but if the question read, “Do you think it’s likely that Bush received some advance warning of the 9/11 attacks?” I’d answer yes, because of the infamous PDB.

#15 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 6:54 pm

No, actually the right has our own idiots too. But they don’t make up 50%+ of the party.

#16 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 6:57 pm

More is coming about about Benghazi and it isn’t good for the Administration. It seems that the two former Seals radioed for support and were turned down three times. One of the request was for permission to go after the Ambassador and the other two was for support for the fire they were taking back at the CIA compound. It also appears there were two AC-130U Gunships in Libya and one was on the scene in Benghazi, but the Obama Administration refused to let it fire.

[3]

These leaks were predicted a week ago when the administration tried to blame the intelligence community for the failure. Some former CIA people predicted that the leaks would come fast and furious. It doesn’t pay to throw the CIA under the bus.

#17 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 6:58 pm

So, because of one poll, you think idiots make up 50% of the Democratic Party.
Don’t complain if partisans on the other side think the same of the GOP. Birthers, anyone? Trump keeps them fat, happy, and voting Republican.

#18 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 7:00 pm

And if Romney is elected, and something goes horribly wrong overseas during his term, you’ll be spluttering when his critics start blaming him.
Something went horribly wrong, Congress and others are investigating, but it’s so much easier to personally blame Obama in order to score political points.

#19 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 7:03 pm

I think the left is just more gullible and likely to believe in conspiracy theories. I remember in 2004 the rumors on the internet on the left that Bush was going to call of the election and become a dictator.

#20 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 7:05 pm

Ooh, Dark Side of the Force. I like that:)

#21 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 7:07 pm

“The left is more gullible” … because the left relies on emotion, while the right relies on reason, right?
“Run for your lives, Obama’s going to grab your guns, take away God, destroy your church, give your son a gay Scoutmaster, and force your daughters on contraceptives!!!!” Nope, no emotion there.

#22 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 7:10 pm

Pete you are the single most hypothetical poster on these boards.

Let me correct what you’ve posited here. WHEN Romney is elected….

#23 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 7:11 pm

I have no idea why you guys are more gullible, it just seems to be what is.

#24 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 7:30 pm

Here’s a pretty good article. Now the people on the left aren’t going to agree with much of it, but I thought you might be interested in what it says about the rise of Barack Obama and where the right sees things today.

[4]

#25 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 7:31 pm

Errr, Howard Dean?

#26 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 7:33 pm

Do you mean this one?

[5]

#27 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 7:41 pm

“the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed.
Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the
planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including
major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had
been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded
Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any
perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.”

“On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being
readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But
the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were
sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a
broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In
response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.”

I don’t recall Howard Dean saying anything as ridiculous as truthers… certainly he never suggested it was an inside job, which is the heart of the truthers’ accusations.

But regardless, Dean wasn’t the presidential nominee!

#29 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 7:45 pm

But that’s OK, because Bush was a Republican.

#30 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 7:46 pm

It would be ridiculously easy for a liberal equivalent online publication to reverse the polarity of that article and make it about Romney.
The right’s loathing of Obama is just as visceral as the left’s loathing of Bush.

#31 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 7:49 pm

Thanks for posting what you meant. But I think these would be called non-actionable intelligence. I kind of think therepeated requests for more security and the repeated reports on the rise of Jihadists might be something worth discussing.

Also the very actionable intelligence that came while the embassy and the CIA compound were under attack are probably another things we should be talking about now.

#32 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 7:59 pm

I don’t think it comes close. You folks keep telling us the loathing is actually just racism. And I’ve not seen any Tea Party demonstrations with guillotines set up for effigies of the President. Now trust me, we think Obama is incompetent and should never have been elected President, but we aren’t calling him a war criminal or the many other insults the left put forward to Bush.

I did find the article interesting. Especially interesting was how the progressives took over the Democratic Party as a direct result of Bush. It seems to parallel how the left thinks the Tea Party has taken over the Republican party. The difference from what I see you saying is that Mitt Romney is not the perfect Tea Party candidate, while Obama seemed to be for the Progressives.

#33 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 8:06 pm

No he was the Chairman of the Democratic Party. Here’s what he did say:

#34 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 8:09 pm

Your side thinks Obama is far more than incompetent.
He’s an evil commie Marxist! He’s out to destroy the “real America”! We need to “take back the country” from him!
Your side talks about “taking back our country” a lot.
Who took it, goodspkr?
Who stole it?
And why does a simple change in the political party controlling the executive branch — something that has happened all the time in our country’s history — lead to talk of “taking back our country”?
Obama is just as American as every single Tea Partier.
Liberals are just as American as every conservative.
We are just as patriotic.
Nobody has stolen our country, it’s still here.
You guys do NOT have a divine right to the White House.
There is no constitutional qualification that the president shall be a Republican.

#35 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 8:20 pm

Is our country stronger fiscally now that we were four years ago? Do we have a plan to control our out of control deficit? Are there 23 million unemployed or underemployed Americans? Did Obama pass Obamacare when clearly over 1/2 the people were against it? Did Obama violate the War Powers Resolution in Libya? Has Obama ignored court orders in the Gulf in shutting down drilling after the oil leak? Has the President issued an Executive Order telling the INS to ignore the law in dealing with certain illegal aliens? Has Obama ordered the Justice Department not to defend DOMA?

We are supposed to be a country of laws. I’d kind of like to have that country back, wouldn’t you?

#36 Comment By Anonymous On October 26, 2012 @ 8:42 pm

Okay, that’s pretty bad. I don’t remember that off-hand, but again, he wasn’t the nominee

#37 Comment By Anonymous On October 27, 2012 @ 2:51 am

No purple hearts given out at Fort Hood because that wasn’t a terrorist attack but a case of workplace violence. Staff Sgt. Shawn Manning, who was shot six times that day, said his injuries prevented him from continuing to serve. But he won’t receive the same benefits as those severely wounded on the battlefield because an Army medical evaluation board didn’t deem his injuries as combat-related, he said.

[6]

#38 Comment By Anonymous On October 27, 2012 @ 2:57 am

Come on Pete. BHO and the Democrats have spent the past four years blaming pretty much everything on W. And now we have this incident in Benghazi and if someone wants to hold President Obama accountable for what HE did, you folks scream political opportunism! Is he never going to be responsible for anything?

#39 Comment By Anonymous On October 27, 2012 @ 1:31 pm

Bottom line: Mr. President, what we’re you told was going on and when we’re you told? What orders did you give?

#40 Comment By thor On October 27, 2012 @ 3:36 pm

I’ve been pointing out that you overuse hypotheticals for a long time. But, you won’t admit that we conservatives criticized the Bush administration for spending too much money. You want us to take your hypotheticals seriously then admit that we have criticized Republicans as well as Democrats.

#41 Comment By Anonymous On October 27, 2012 @ 6:54 pm

Actually, that should be “Like that, I do.”

#42 Comment By Gary R. Reed On October 28, 2012 @ 3:08 pm

When the final facts come out about Benghazi here’s what I predict will be in evidence (much of what I relate here is already based on fact.)
1. From the beginning of the attack until the final deaths of the four Americans, as much as seven hours elapses.
2. Obama, the national security adviser, the Pentagon and the CIA knew from the beginning that the attack was a pre-planned terrorist event and the unrest related to the “Anti Muslim movie” was simply a cover.
3. Repeated calls for help from the embattled Americans went unheeded.
4. A marine rapid deployment force was in the area and could have had boots on the ground in as little as twenty minutes or as long as one hour, depending on the accuracy of estimates by military officials on scene.
5. Two C-130 gunships, multiple Air Force fighter/bombers and an armed drone were in the area or only minutes away.
6. Hillary Clinton had ordered additional security for the Benghazi consulate but her order was countermanded by “higher authority.”
7. The Obama administration intentionally lied, misled and deceived the American people about these events because of their culpability in the deaths of these personnel.
When it became evident that then President Nixon knew about and lied about Watergate, his presidency was over. That lie brought down a president. What will be the result of this lie? Remember, Watergate didn’t kill or harm anyone.

#43 Comment By Anonymous On October 29, 2012 @ 9:12 pm

Oh, right, Bush. If he did something, that makes it OK for everyone else.

But did Bush get his people to find out if Iraq was involved in 9/11 (a logical place to start, actually) or did he send his U.N. ambassador on the Sunday yak-fest rounds to sell a phony story?